Nuisance in Tort Law

Nuisance is any incursion which may “interfere with the ordinary use and enjoyment” of land. It is important to distinguish between private and public nuisance.
Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with use or enjoyment of land; or a right relating to land.
Public nuisance is a crime covering interferences with rights of the public at large. To claim in
tort, an individual must prove he has suffered more damage than the rest of the community.
It can be, but does not have to be, connected with use or enjoyment of land.
Private nuisance is unreasonable non-trespassory interference with use/enjoyment of land, or right relating to land. Private nuisance is not actionable per se (in itself ) and the claimant needs to prove actual damage. Private nuisance aims to balance the rights of neighbouring landowners to use their own land without unreasonably affecting one another.
Direct interference is when if a person or physical object crosses onto Claimant’s land, it is trespass. Indirect interferences are where no person or physical object crosses onto Claimant’s land for example. a noise/smell, this is nuisance. Firstly it should be non trespassory.

Secondly there should be an actionable interference with the land.
In Aldred’s Case, it was seen that although smells from a pigsty could constitute nuisance, the obstruction of light could not. Light is “a matter only of delight, and not of necessity” and “the law does not give an action for such things of delight.” this was Interference with Claimant’s view.
Hunter v Canary Wharf is a case of Interference with TV reception, it was held that Defendant is entitled to build on his land, so the fact that a building stops something reaching Claimant’s land is not enough to constitute a nuisance. Left open the question of whether an activity on Defendant’s land which prevents a signal from reaching Claimant (as opposed to obstruction of a signal by a building) could be a nuisance.
In Bradford Corporation v Pickles, Defendant owned land which supplied water to Claimant’s dams. Defendant diverted water feeding the spring. House of Lords held Defendant was entitled to do so, even though his purpose was to force Claimant to pay him to stop: “if it was a lawful act, however ill the motive might be, he had a right to do it.”
Three broad categories of actionable interference were listed by Lord Lloyd in Hunter. First is Encroachment, such as branches or roots of a tree encroaching Claimant’s land. Secondly, Direct physical damage to Claimant’s land or fixtures for example flooding, damage to buildings, trees or crops. For fixtures damage is actionable and for chattels damage is not actionable. Third category is interference with Claimant’s comfort or convenience in quiet enjoyment of his land.
In the old case of St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping, Defendant’s extensive copper smelting caused damage to Claimant’s trees; the area was one in which there was a history of smelting. House of Lords held that there is a distinction between nuisance causing ‘material injury’ to Claimant’s property and nuisance causing inconvenience or discomfort. For the former, no balancing exercise is necessary; Defendant’s argument that this was a neighbourhood where smelting took place was therefore not relevant where there was material injury to the property.

It was stated in Halsey v Esso, that “the law must strike a fair and reasonable balance between the right of Claimant… to the undisturbed enjoyment of his property, and the right of Defendant… to use his property for his own lawful enjoyment”.
Here the test is claimant focused. What can the Claimant reasonably be expected to put up with? Although there is a need to weigh the interests of Claimant and Defendant; if Defendant’s interference with Claimant’s enjoyment of land is intolerable, it will be nuisance, no matter social utility of Defendant’s conduct. However, social utility or reasonableness of Defendant’s conduct is relevant when asking what Claimant can reasonably be expected to tolerate.

[prakharbhardwaj]

Why intention is irrelevant in tort law? And relevant in crimes?

[mayankbesoya]

Mam if we have to understand like you are trying to explain then why do we watch your video .... we simply hit the please explain in simple language and second thing is that you are soo beautiful 😊